Did UK Police Quietly Sideline ‘Climategate’ Hacker Investigation?

Did UK Police Quietly Sideline ‘Climategate’ Hacker Investigation?

The UK police force tasked with investigating the hacking of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (the debunked “Climategate”) seems to have quietly de-prioritized its investigation earlier this year, according to documents released under the UK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Norfolk Constabulary police force’s responses to FOIA requests indicate that the amount spent on attempts to identify the hacker in the last year was just £5,649.09 - with all but £80.05 spent on invoices for work carried out previously by private companies, suggesting police work on the investigation has ground to a halt.

Earlier this week, the hackers (ironically calling themselves “FOIA”) illegally released a second set of hacked material consisting of 5,349 emails and 23 documents from UEA. The university and independent reviews suggest these are leftovers from the initial November 2009 theft – in the words of one climate scientist, “two-year old turkey.”

While nine independent inquiries have cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing in the wake of the baseless ‘Climategate’ episode, the person (or persons) responsible for the hacking has gotten off scot-free to date. The FOIA documents seem to indicate that the police investigation was derailed and perhaps dropped earlier this year.

The grand total spent by Norfolk police on the UEA hacker investigation since the November 2009 theft is just £80,905.11.

To illustrate the vast gap between this figure and the expenditures reported publicly about other UK police investigations, see the infographic below.

Norfolk Constabulary invoked an exemption under the FOIA rules to refuse to confirm or deny whether other UK security services such as MI5 or MI6 have worked on the investigation. A statement from Norfolk police did confirm it is receiving “ongoing assistance” from the UK’s domestic terrorism agency, the National Domestic Extremism Coordination Unit, and that it was helped early in the investigation by London's Metropolitan Police. But the current status of their involvement – and how high a priority this investigation is for these agencies – is unclear.

While the Guardian reports that police say the latest leak could produce more leads and claim their investigation is ongoing, the FOIA documents show that the last time any money was actually spent on this case was in February 2011, when the £80.05 in “officer expenses” were filed.

In response to the publication of the tiny £5,649.09 annual expenditure, a Norfolk police spokeswoman told the Guardian it is “relevant to note that the figures relate only to additional expenditure and do not include officer and staff time on the investigation, which is not routinely recorded.”

It is entirely plausible that British security agencies have spent millions and are poised to make an arrest. But the budget certainly indicates that it hasn’t been a high priority for the Norfolk police force.

If there is a serious investigation underway, surely the officers would incur more expenses than the cost of a few boxes of paper and doughnuts?

“There are currently no police officers or police staff, within Norfolk Constabulary, working full time on the investigation into the acquisition of data from the computers at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. The Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) and the Deputy/SIO retain responsibility and resources are allocated if and when necessary.”

There is a vital public interest in confirming that the UEA emails were criminally hacked and in turn, identifying those responsible and their connections.

Among many reasons for continued police diligence, climate scientist Phil Jones said he contemplated suicide after the initial email theft in 2009. So it is important for investigators to get to the bottom of this crime in order to mete out at least some justice for this baseless attempt at character assassination of climate scientists.

The ongoing harassment of climate scientists – including death threats in several cases – cannot be ignored by law enforcement agencies. If police were able to confirm the identity of the UEA hackers and bring them to justice swiftly, it would hopefully have a chilling effect on the vicious smear campaign against climate scientists.

If in fact there is a robust police investigation ongoing, then the public needs to have confirmation about that. Investigators can provide some indications of their progress without compromising the investigation, and they owe at least that courtesy to the public.

As it stands now, these FOIA results showing very little expenditure on the investigation indicate that the Norfolk police effort is completely inadequate.

If the investigation was sidelined for much of 2011, as the FOIA documents indicate, then a formal review must commence immediately to determine the reasons for that lapse in judgment.

British officials should also seriously consider the suggestion from Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Edward Markey that the U.S. intelligence community should assist in the investigation.

“This is clearly an attempt to sabotage the international climate talks for a second time, and there has not been enough attention paid to who is responsible for these illegal acts. If this happened surrounding nuclear arms talks, we would have the full force of the western world's intelligence community pursuing the perpetrators. And yet, with the stability of our climate hanging in the balance with these international climate treaty negotiations, these hackers and their supporters are still on the loose. It is time to bring them to justice.”

Whatever the reason for the low UK police expenditures, it is clearly time for a more coordinated international investigation into this crime.

IIRC, there is no evidence either way on the release of the emails at this point.

So the theory that the emails were ‘released’ by a whistleblower at the CRU is just as valid as it being a ‘hack’ by an outsider. If I was the CRU, I would rather have no findings at this point instead of proof that it was an ‘inside job’.

the ethics, or rather lack thereof, of the bullshit artists in the media and the fossil fuel paid scientists to who’s coat tails they cling. No names need be mentioned as the Research Database here is replete with these and any not mentioned are now familiar from their wailing in the wind, flatulence being their mark.

One such from that latter was certainly exposed by a true scientist as nothing more than an ‘interpreter of interpretations’ with an ego the size of Jupiter and a self awareness as massive as an iota.

As the evidence that makes their position untenable mounts these hacks and charlatans of climate change denial resort to ever more desperate, and low, means of seeking attention, all the time revealing more about themselves than they realise. Amongst other things they reveal an astonishing lack of maturity for grown men and women.

Why these men chose to be scientists in this field is certainly aptitude as well as political. They didn’t do it for the money.

What ever their beliefs, they are backed by tons of other scientists. And there are no other scientists on the opposing side. (Appearently from your opposition, they can write blogs bitching to their heart’s content, but they can’t write a single scientific paper.)

Finally, you are looking at old emails and papers. Seriously… roll back your clock and the world looks different. Evidence keeps mounting.

Frank Luntz says as much in the last 2 minutes of this documentary (and he recants he thinks this issue is too important to keep doing what we are doing). Frank Luntz advised the US Republicans and Canada’s Prime Minister on how to spin Climate Change.

If he makes a lot of outside money because of who he is in the climate world (and I have no idea if he does or not) that would create a conflict of interest and you would have to weigh his expressions about climate in that light.

If an oil company exec. says “global warming is nothing to worry about”, then you automatically would say theres a man with a conflict of interest.

It applies in both cases. So yes, it does matter if men like Hansen and Gore have a conflict of interest.

If someone were to go through a ton of my email, I’m sure they’d turn up something wrong, or inappropriate.

Unless you can find something that states, “I faked the data to promote my world view.” You got nothing. The fact is that all the results these guys produced is available for scientists to read, understand, and debunk. No climate change denier has done that. But they have blogged about it ad nauseum. Called camera crews… ad-nauseum… called newspapers, ad-nauseum.

IMO, I wonder if climate deniers guys do anything but bitch ad-nauseum. They certainly can’t do anything else. I suppose the truth is in the pay checks, eh? They are paid bloggers right?

So… looking through emails. Ever done that? As part of a lawsuit, I looked through a co-worker’s work emails. Of course it was full of private stuff. Lots of great stuff which would have been a good laugh if I had shared it around the office. Lots of great stuff to dredge up in our lawsuit. But frankly, there was no smoking gun of any sort.

Sifting through the CRU emails has produced nothing. Furthermore, all of their data has been verified by other scientists. You know, real experts (plural) in things like dendroclimatology.

You side of the fence has clueless bloggers. I’d say to them, “Get a job.” But I suspect we already know what they are paid to do.

Has had a huge impact because what occured behind the scenes is not what was publically stated. The impartial scientific establishment as it turns out is hardly unbiased. Reasearchers that discuss political spin and how to pressure journals into censoring opposing research is not what we we’re told science is about or how it should operate.

The hard push that the science was settled certainly is not the case. There are great doubts privately but not publically. Why can’t this be honestly disclosed, rather than always attempting political spin, like would occur in every other branch of science?

Because by doing that, they can use him as a red herring for a few things. They can keep the focus on progressives & hide the fact that many conservative governments have successful climate change policies or carbon taxes. You will rarely if ever see an article in right wing climate blogs ( WUWT, Depot, Audit, Hill etc) about Angela Merkel or N.Z . It’s also a rallying point for conservatives. They can show Gores photo almost weekly on posts to convince the easily led that it’s all Al Gores fault AGW came about & not the scientists or science that has been around 80 years before Inconvenient truth. By mentioning Al Gore frequently, they can also identify themselves with outright saying it….as right wingers.

Al is the anathema of the denialist right. The convenient political scapegoat & red herring .

“When the average Joe thinks about climate change, they think about Al.”

Maybe that is the right’s perception. It’s certainly not true, but would explain some of their need to attack him so frequently. In the mind of the right, he is commander in chief. To everyone else, he is a corporal.

Markey says that the U.S. intelligence agencies should become involved in the search for the hacker. Hopefully, this has already happened. The CIA has a Center for Climate Change and National Security, so the CIA might be trying to snare the hackers.

Hopefully, U.S. intelligence services are looking for the hackers, since the

hackers target U.S. government agencies and programs with their propaganda.

I read that the National Intelligence Council, which does research on climate change, also does research on transnational organized crime. The NIC has stated:

The NIC has posted a document called “The Impact of Climate Change to 2030.” This document is a collection of research and conference reports. On June 25, 2008, Dr. Thomas Fingar, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, summarized this report in Congress.

In his testimony before Congress, Dr. Fingar stated:

“Our primary source for climate science was the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, which we augmented with other peer-reviewed analyses and contracted research. We used the UN Panel report as our baseline because this document was reviewed and coordinated on by the US government and internationally respected by the scientific community.”

I would not be too critical of the Norfolk Constabulary. They actually have had information on their site about how to respond to climate change.

Here are some links about the NIC, climate change, and transnational organized crime:

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched an ambitious and highly consequential study of the risks that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, poses to American drinking water supplies.

“This is about using the best possible science to do what the American people expect the EPA to do – ensure that the health of their communities and families are protected,” Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for the agency's Office of Research and Development,...